Thursday, May 28, 2009

5/30 Chapter 9—Choosing Adjectivals

Here is a sentence from my most recent draft that has a lot of commas [that] I’m not sure are working correctly.
(Is the above sentence a case where I don’t need “that”? I’ll rewrite it this way: “I’m not sure that the many commas in this sentence from my most recent draft are correct.” Well, this change doesn’t lead with the introduction of the thing/the sentence, so the prepositional phrase “from my most recent draft” makes the sentence a little clunky. Looking back at Kolln, I see that she says {I just started that phrase with SHE, but realized that I am the one looking back} that “that” can be omitted if it doesn’t cause any confusion (197)).

Anyways, back to this sentence!:

OLD: “For this study then, I focus on the rhetorical strategies, or perhaps more appropriately the rhetorical peculiarities of History of a Six Weeks’ Tour, as it was published.”
NEW: “For this study then, I focus on the rhetorical strategies—or perhaps more appropriately, the rhetorical peculiarities—of the crafted, published version of History.”

In this change, I wanted to emphasize the rephrasing of “rhetorical strategies” to “peculiarities”, so I set off this appositive (is that what we’d call it? Peculiarities modifies or further defines the object “strategies”) with a dash instead. Kolln says that the dash or colon puts emphasis on the appositive, which is what I wanted to do here. As for that last phrase—“as it was published”—I’m not sure if it would need to be set off with that comma, but I’m thinking it doesn’t. However, I wanted to change it because in the old version, this is where the emphasis lands. Since I am trying to move past readings of History that don’t use the published version, setting off that phrase keeps it too separated. So I moved the adjective published before the noun and added "crafted" (for emphasis and repetition I’m trying to weave into the paper throughout) and set them off with a comma so it’s clear that they both are independently modifying “version.” I like this change quite a bit, though I’m not sure if I need that comma between “appropriately” and “the.”

***I found this chapter to be difficult to read; I thought there was no chance I would be able to spot this stuff in my writing without pouring over the chapter. It's crazy that in writing the first sentence of this post that I was suddenly aware of the way it was going together and questioning automatically if it was 'right' or the most effective it could be. Sweet.


3 comments:

  1. Hannah,

    I agree with you. This chapter was difficult to read. As I read it, I thought, there is no way that undergrads could digest this. And I worried, too, that I'd be able to find a sentence to adjust with these concepts. We'll see how I do in a moment. It's funny, though. I taught all of these concepts to my 9th graders back when I taught 9th grade, and I never used any of this intimidating terminology. I think the terminology just gets in the way of Kolln's meaning. I suppose as grad students we should now what a summative modifier or a nominal clause are (still am foggy on that), but I've always thought that if you can write a sentence correctly and have a good grasp on how to use different types of sentence structures, then who the hell cares what they're called. I'm not sure this long comment is still related to your post. Sorry. In any case, I like your new sentence, which by the way rocks!! How's that for correct relative clause usage?

    -Tessa

    ReplyDelete
  2. "Intimidating" is not a bad word for the terminology. When I go through the book I don't have as much trouble noticing things I do in my own writing as I do remembering what they're called...

    I also like your new sentence. I like dashes -perhaps too much :)- as it is, but in this case they lend humor to the sentence. The comment about rhetorical peculiarities becomes an affectionate aside.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Generally, I am a grammar wussy who wishes she were (was?!?!?! arg!...it's definitely were, right?) a grammar bad-ass.

    I think part of the difficulty of the first read of Kolln is also how fast she moves (and there is also a lot of referring back).

    ReplyDelete